Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Aug;124(16):3339-3345.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.31577. Epub 2018 Jul 5.

Statistical justification of expansion cohorts in phase 1 cancer trials

Affiliations

Statistical justification of expansion cohorts in phase 1 cancer trials

Ali A Mokdad et al. Cancer. 2018 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Phase I cancer trials increasingly incorporate dose-expansion cohorts (DECs), reflecting a growing demand to acquire more information about investigational drugs. Protocols commonly fail to provide a sample-size justification or analysis plan for the DEC. In this study, we develop a statistical framework for the design of DECs.

Methods: We assume the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) for the investigational drug has been identified in the dose-escalation stage of the trial. We use the 80% lower confidence bound and the 90% upper confidence bound for the response and toxicity rates, respectively, as decision thresholds for the dose-expansion stage. We calculate the operating characteristics with reference to prespecified minimum effective response rates and maximum safe DLT rates.

Results: We apply our framework to specify a system of DEC plans. The design comprises three components: 1) the number of subjects enrolled at the MTD, 2) the minimum number of responses necessary to indicate provisional drug efficacy, and 3) the maximum number of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) permitted to indicate drug safety. We demonstrate our method in an application to a cancer immunotherapy trial.

Conclusions: Our simple and practical tool enables creation of DEC designs that appropriately address the safety and efficacy objectives of the trial.

Keywords: design; dose expansion; dose-finding; efficacy; safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
80% lower confidence bounds (LCBs, green) for response and 90% upper confidence bounds (UCB, blue) for toxicity for sample sizes A) 15, B) 20, C) 30, and D) 40 subjects; DEC sizes are A) 9, B) 14, C) 24, and D) 34 subjects, respectively. DLT= dose-limiting toxicity.
Figure 1
Figure 1
80% lower confidence bounds (LCBs, green) for response and 90% upper confidence bounds (UCB, blue) for toxicity for sample sizes A) 15, B) 20, C) 30, and D) 40 subjects; DEC sizes are A) 9, B) 14, C) 24, and D) 34 subjects, respectively. DLT= dose-limiting toxicity.
Figure 1
Figure 1
80% lower confidence bounds (LCBs, green) for response and 90% upper confidence bounds (UCB, blue) for toxicity for sample sizes A) 15, B) 20, C) 30, and D) 40 subjects; DEC sizes are A) 9, B) 14, C) 24, and D) 34 subjects, respectively. DLT= dose-limiting toxicity.
Figure 1
Figure 1
80% lower confidence bounds (LCBs, green) for response and 90% upper confidence bounds (UCB, blue) for toxicity for sample sizes A) 15, B) 20, C) 30, and D) 40 subjects; DEC sizes are A) 9, B) 14, C) 24, and D) 34 subjects, respectively. DLT= dose-limiting toxicity.

Comment in

References

    1. Ivy SP, Siu LL, Garrett-Mayer E, Rubinstein L. Approaches to phase 1 clinical trial design focused on safety, efficiency, and selected patient populations: A report from the Clinical Trial Design Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(6):1726–1736. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1961. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Korn EL, Midthune D, Chen TT, Rubinstein LV, Christian MC, Simon RM. A comparison of two phase I trial designs. Stat Med. 1994;13(18):1799–1806. - PubMed
    1. Manji A, Brana I, Amir E, et al. Evolution of clinical trial design in early drug development: Systematic review of expansion cohort use in single-agent phase I cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(33):4260–4267. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.47.4957. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dahlberg SE, Shapiro GI, Clark JW, Johnson BE. Evaluation of statistical designs in phase I expansion cohorts: the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center experience. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(7) doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju163. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wong KM, Capasso A, Eckhardt SG. The changing landscape of phase I trials in oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(2):106–117. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.194. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms